As mentioned in a previous post on Oaths (Oaths 2), the first colonists arriving on the shores of the American continent were Christians, some more explicit in their commitment to a biblical system of civil government than others. The forms of government ranged from that of the Puritans, who explicitly sought to set up a biblical commonwealth, to that of the Pilgrims, who also sought to set up a civil government on Christian principles, to the Virginia settlement, which simply sought to continue the political Christianity of Great Britain. The most compromised of versions would put modern, 21st century America to shame with respect to commitment to the true God of the bible.
So, when those Christian colonists arrived on these shores with radical, as well as somewhat watered down, commitments to the God of the bible, was He watching? Did he see their faith in Him? Did He bless them because they sought the God of the bible? Did He hold future generations to the original covenantal commitments? Does He still do so? Or does He forget about those original vows to serve Him and not the creation? Can man write a new document and say, "Almighty God, we're done with your ancient, old-fashioned precepts and have come up with something more modern, more suited to our tastes these days. We've unilaterally revoked any requirement you have over us as Creator or which you might seek to impose based on covenants that are now centuries old. We divorce you, divorce you, divorce you!" What does God think of that?
First, it is safe to assert that the U.S. Constitution, as originally drafted, did not require that that generation or that later generations forsake, despise, and disobey the God of the bible. However, it is also safe to say that there are elements of American society which interpret it that way. Their position is that no aspect of the bible can order or even influence public policy, on the state or federal level. Their publicly stated goal is to expunge every aspect of the bible from civil government. They are the Jeroboams of our time.
Second, it is also safe to assert that the U.S. Constitution does not contain the explicit covenantal commitments and aspirations of the original colonists who sought to implement societies modeled upon the biblical covenant. See earlier posts (Oaths 3, Oaths 4) on the oaths required for those serving in civil government in the colonies and under early State Constitutions.
Critical questions: Why wouldn't God hold the descendants of the original colonists to those original commitments? Does the U.S. Constitution represent a failure of faithfulness to those commitments, or is it merely a modification, allowing for liberty of the States and Federal entities to operate within those original covenantal commitments? If the latter, can we still remain faithful to those original covenants, as modified by the U.S. Constitution and the amendments to that document? Or has the predation of our modern Jeroboams accomplished too much damage to even retain the minimum faithfulness needed to fulfill the original covenants? If the U.S. Constitution is an utter failure to continue the original covenants, what is the path forward for the nation? For the Church? For a thorough historical criticism of the U.S. Constitution as utter failure, see Gary North's "Political Polytheism."
Saturday, May 28, 2016
Oaths 8
So, how can we process this history of religious test oaths in America? We must use the bible. Conservatives accuse liberals of regularly departing from, even forgetting, the principles of the U.S. Constitution. And rightly so. However, what if the U.S. Constitution were not the founding document of America? You ask, "What do you mean? Of course, it's the founding document!" Remember, we decided we must look at this issue biblically.
After Solomon's reign, his son was unwise and started his reign as king with oppression. Upon being petitioned by the people for relief from the oppression of the high taxes they had been living under, King Rehoboam promised to impose even higher taxes. This threat from the new King resulted in a revolt by the northern tribes and the creation of a new political and religious jurisdiction, separate from the jurisdiction of the descendants of King David, which encompassed the land of Judah and Benjamin in the South.
The tax issue was merely a symptom of a deeper problem.
"And it came to pass at that time when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, that the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him in the way; and he had clad himself with a new garment; and they two were alone in the field; And Ahijah caught the new garment that was on him, and rent it in twelve pieces: And he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee: (But he shall have one tribe for my servant David's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel:) . . . " I Kings 11:29-32.
Why? ". . . Because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father. Howbeit I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand: but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant's sake, whom I chose, because he kept my commandments and my statutes: But I will take the kingdom out of his son's hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten tribes." I Kings 11:33-35.
Therefore, forsaking the true God leads to division and higher taxes in society. See post, "The Connections Between Forsaking God & Higher Taxes," in the Blog, "Toward a Biblical Politics." But with respect to faithfulness to the covenant God, Jeroboam ended up being much worse than Solomon.
"And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David: If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the LORD at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me, and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah. Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan. And this thing became a sin: for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan." I Kings 12:26-30.
Thus, for political reasons, Jeroboam set up a totally different worship for the Israelites in the northern kingdom. This worship was like that form adopted by the Israelites after the exodus from Egypt and while Moses was receiving the Ten Commandments centuries earlier. The judgment of God was grievous at that time. See Exodus chapters 32-33. "And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made." Exodus 32:35.
It didn't matter that King Jeroboam set up a new, revised politico-religious foundation for the society. God still held the northern kingdom to the original covenant, sending that kingdom prophets regularly to rebuke the kings and people for their failure to live up to the original covenant which Moses had mediated between God and the Israelites. The northern kingdom is where the prophets Elijah and Elishah worked. Eventually, the failing of the northern kingdom to adhere to the original covenant, enacted on Mt. Sinai and mediated by Moses, was utter defeat and annihilation at the hands of the Assyrians, who scattered the survivors across the Assyrian empire. After the disaster of 722 B.C., the northern kingdom was no more.
See Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26 for the punishment/sanctions which apply to a people who forsake the true God. It's not pretty. And God holds the generations that follow the original covenant-making generation to the original covenant. Thus, we see the operation of the fourth and fifth elements of the covenant - sanctions for disobedience and discontinuity, instead of preservation and continuity, for those future generations who forsake that covenant.
How does this scenario apply to the United States of America?
After Solomon's reign, his son was unwise and started his reign as king with oppression. Upon being petitioned by the people for relief from the oppression of the high taxes they had been living under, King Rehoboam promised to impose even higher taxes. This threat from the new King resulted in a revolt by the northern tribes and the creation of a new political and religious jurisdiction, separate from the jurisdiction of the descendants of King David, which encompassed the land of Judah and Benjamin in the South.
The tax issue was merely a symptom of a deeper problem.
"And it came to pass at that time when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, that the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him in the way; and he had clad himself with a new garment; and they two were alone in the field; And Ahijah caught the new garment that was on him, and rent it in twelve pieces: And he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee: (But he shall have one tribe for my servant David's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel:) . . . " I Kings 11:29-32.
Why? ". . . Because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father. Howbeit I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand: but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant's sake, whom I chose, because he kept my commandments and my statutes: But I will take the kingdom out of his son's hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten tribes." I Kings 11:33-35.
Therefore, forsaking the true God leads to division and higher taxes in society. See post, "The Connections Between Forsaking God & Higher Taxes," in the Blog, "Toward a Biblical Politics." But with respect to faithfulness to the covenant God, Jeroboam ended up being much worse than Solomon.
"And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David: If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the LORD at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me, and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah. Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan. And this thing became a sin: for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan." I Kings 12:26-30.
Thus, for political reasons, Jeroboam set up a totally different worship for the Israelites in the northern kingdom. This worship was like that form adopted by the Israelites after the exodus from Egypt and while Moses was receiving the Ten Commandments centuries earlier. The judgment of God was grievous at that time. See Exodus chapters 32-33. "And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made." Exodus 32:35.
It didn't matter that King Jeroboam set up a new, revised politico-religious foundation for the society. God still held the northern kingdom to the original covenant, sending that kingdom prophets regularly to rebuke the kings and people for their failure to live up to the original covenant which Moses had mediated between God and the Israelites. The northern kingdom is where the prophets Elijah and Elishah worked. Eventually, the failing of the northern kingdom to adhere to the original covenant, enacted on Mt. Sinai and mediated by Moses, was utter defeat and annihilation at the hands of the Assyrians, who scattered the survivors across the Assyrian empire. After the disaster of 722 B.C., the northern kingdom was no more.
See Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26 for the punishment/sanctions which apply to a people who forsake the true God. It's not pretty. And God holds the generations that follow the original covenant-making generation to the original covenant. Thus, we see the operation of the fourth and fifth elements of the covenant - sanctions for disobedience and discontinuity, instead of preservation and continuity, for those future generations who forsake that covenant.
How does this scenario apply to the United States of America?
Oaths 7
The decision to switch from a Trinitarian oath to an oath to the Constitution must have been based on a fundamental change in beliefs. The colonies had recognized that a Christian oath is essential to a Christian republic. Unless the authors of the Constitution didn't really understand the importance of the oaths, why would they have inserted them into their founding documents? If they were committed to a Christian form of government before the debates at the Constitutional Convention, then something must have changed at some point. How did it happen? What fundamental change had occurred in their thinking, their faith, their philosophy?
Ellsworth's opinion (see Oaths 3) seems to represent the naive view that one can reconcile radical rationalism and faith in the authoritative word of God. In other words, we can keep our Christian morals and culture, even if it means use of the civil power to enforce such, but we need not require that those using the civil power be actual confessors of the Christian faith and a biblical system of law and justice. Such a viewpoint is absurd on its face.
One has to consider history. The founders of our country had a heritage of tremendous political and religious upheaval during the previous two and a half centuries. On October 31, 1517, the Monk Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses on the Wittenberg Church door in Germany. Considering the work of John Hus and John Wycliffe, this act was not the first salvo of the Reformation, but it is a critical date used to measure what would soon after become a mass movement across Europe. For a century, different governing powers would square off on the side of the established Church, the Roman Catholic Church, or side with the Reformers, like Luther and John Calvin.
The debates, scriptural arguments, persecutions, and military conflicts resulted in a realignment of power. One of the first powers to be questioned was that of the Roman Catholic Pope. If, as the Reformers asserted, the Pope had accumulated unscriptural and illegal power, then what about civil rulers? It was only a matter of time that civil government would come to its "judgment" also, for if there was a limit to the Pope's power and authority, why wouldn't there be limits to the power of civil rulers? If the power of a Church leader was in question, why would civil rulers be immune from questioning? The doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, ostensibly based upon the bible, had propped up many a civil ruler for centuries. Now that anyone could read the bible, many began questioning that doctrine, one of them being Samuel Rutherford, who wrote "Lex Rex" to detail the biblical argument against that doctrine.
Different parts of Europe became Protestant, while others remained Roman Catholic. Nations, regions of nations, and even cities divided against each other on religious and political grounds. The Roman Catholic areas tended to remain in favor of monarchy, while the Protestant areas favored a change toward more democratic civil government. Great Britain, from whence most founders drew their heritage, as well as their understanding of political theory. Before America's foray into the political maelstrom of the time, England was the forerunner of economic and political liberty in the West. From the time of the Magna Carta in 1215, England was proud of its belief in rights and liberty in the face of tyrannical overreach.
Therefore, it was no surprise that in England occurred the political victory of those who argued in favor of lawful limits to a king's authority. That political battle resulted in the execution of a king by Parliament and the deposing of another in the 1600's. But that victory of Parliament came with a terrible price - civil warfare, illegitimate prosecutions for heresy against the Roman Catholic Church's doctrines, and all the upheaval that comes with such. By the end of the Seventeenth century, Parliament had cut the power of the king down to a manageable size, but only to gradually accumulate too much power to itself.
Apparently, the Parliament thought that the votes of the people were sufficient to grant it absolute sovereignty over Englishmen, whether living in England proper or in the American colonies. The American colonies developed a different view. The fact that an ocean separated the colonies from the mother country immunized the colonies for a time from the upheavals in England. But the prosperity of the colonies gained the attention of Parliament in the Eighteenth century. And being ignored by the mother country was no longer sufficient to protect the colonies from the envious eye of the Parliament, who could raise taxes on the Americans' prosperity and experience no negative consequences at the ballot box. The temptation for the politician to profit off that imbalance was too great to resist.
But America had yet to develop an adequate answer to the Parliament's aggrandizing actions. See Bernard Bailyn's book, "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution," (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992). American lawyers, speakers, representatives hammered out an answer and a defense for their resistance to Parliament's efforts to take from the colonists the lawful rights of Englishmen, a status in which the colonists still lived and breathed. They were Englishmen, entitled to the same fundamental, God-given rights as Englishmen living on the Isle of Great Britain. The Americans searched high and low through the political writings of thinkers of the past, and the wrote their own polemical works. By far, the most referenced work was the bible, for the colonists were governed in their thinking by a Christian perspective. And while there were many Roman Catholics in the colonies, the vast majority were Protestant in their thinking if not in their actual church membership.
One of the key impediments to the colonists in their argument for liberty was a "sovereignty" concept governing the thinking of Parliament. The English king's power had been preserved because of this concept, which was that there could be only one source of sovereignty in a nation. That source prior to the English Revolution of the Seventeenth Century was the king, as God's delegated representative. Once the king lost absolute power, the Parliament took up the mantle - "Parliamentary Sovereignty." It was this concept, far more powerful in the 1700's than the Divine Right of the British monarch, against which the colonists had to argue and ultimately fight.
During the ratification debates, when the thirteen States were debating ratifying the Constitution, there was concern among certain sects in the country that a religious test oath could be used to exclude those of a certain belief. Such oaths had been used that way in the past. One could argue that the exclusion of certain Christian sects from participation in the civil sphere had created a fear of a religious test oath. However, that was the colonists' experience in Europe. The religious test oaths of the American Colonies were not that type of oath. See Blog Post, "Oaths 1." The American oaths might exclude non-Christians and certain heretical Christian sects but not the majority of Christians.
Ellsworth's opinion (see Oaths 3) seems to represent the naive view that one can reconcile radical rationalism and faith in the authoritative word of God. In other words, we can keep our Christian morals and culture, even if it means use of the civil power to enforce such, but we need not require that those using the civil power be actual confessors of the Christian faith and a biblical system of law and justice. Such a viewpoint is absurd on its face.
One has to consider history. The founders of our country had a heritage of tremendous political and religious upheaval during the previous two and a half centuries. On October 31, 1517, the Monk Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses on the Wittenberg Church door in Germany. Considering the work of John Hus and John Wycliffe, this act was not the first salvo of the Reformation, but it is a critical date used to measure what would soon after become a mass movement across Europe. For a century, different governing powers would square off on the side of the established Church, the Roman Catholic Church, or side with the Reformers, like Luther and John Calvin.
The debates, scriptural arguments, persecutions, and military conflicts resulted in a realignment of power. One of the first powers to be questioned was that of the Roman Catholic Pope. If, as the Reformers asserted, the Pope had accumulated unscriptural and illegal power, then what about civil rulers? It was only a matter of time that civil government would come to its "judgment" also, for if there was a limit to the Pope's power and authority, why wouldn't there be limits to the power of civil rulers? If the power of a Church leader was in question, why would civil rulers be immune from questioning? The doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, ostensibly based upon the bible, had propped up many a civil ruler for centuries. Now that anyone could read the bible, many began questioning that doctrine, one of them being Samuel Rutherford, who wrote "Lex Rex" to detail the biblical argument against that doctrine.
Different parts of Europe became Protestant, while others remained Roman Catholic. Nations, regions of nations, and even cities divided against each other on religious and political grounds. The Roman Catholic areas tended to remain in favor of monarchy, while the Protestant areas favored a change toward more democratic civil government. Great Britain, from whence most founders drew their heritage, as well as their understanding of political theory. Before America's foray into the political maelstrom of the time, England was the forerunner of economic and political liberty in the West. From the time of the Magna Carta in 1215, England was proud of its belief in rights and liberty in the face of tyrannical overreach.
Therefore, it was no surprise that in England occurred the political victory of those who argued in favor of lawful limits to a king's authority. That political battle resulted in the execution of a king by Parliament and the deposing of another in the 1600's. But that victory of Parliament came with a terrible price - civil warfare, illegitimate prosecutions for heresy against the Roman Catholic Church's doctrines, and all the upheaval that comes with such. By the end of the Seventeenth century, Parliament had cut the power of the king down to a manageable size, but only to gradually accumulate too much power to itself.
Apparently, the Parliament thought that the votes of the people were sufficient to grant it absolute sovereignty over Englishmen, whether living in England proper or in the American colonies. The American colonies developed a different view. The fact that an ocean separated the colonies from the mother country immunized the colonies for a time from the upheavals in England. But the prosperity of the colonies gained the attention of Parliament in the Eighteenth century. And being ignored by the mother country was no longer sufficient to protect the colonies from the envious eye of the Parliament, who could raise taxes on the Americans' prosperity and experience no negative consequences at the ballot box. The temptation for the politician to profit off that imbalance was too great to resist.
But America had yet to develop an adequate answer to the Parliament's aggrandizing actions. See Bernard Bailyn's book, "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution," (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992). American lawyers, speakers, representatives hammered out an answer and a defense for their resistance to Parliament's efforts to take from the colonists the lawful rights of Englishmen, a status in which the colonists still lived and breathed. They were Englishmen, entitled to the same fundamental, God-given rights as Englishmen living on the Isle of Great Britain. The Americans searched high and low through the political writings of thinkers of the past, and the wrote their own polemical works. By far, the most referenced work was the bible, for the colonists were governed in their thinking by a Christian perspective. And while there were many Roman Catholics in the colonies, the vast majority were Protestant in their thinking if not in their actual church membership.
One of the key impediments to the colonists in their argument for liberty was a "sovereignty" concept governing the thinking of Parliament. The English king's power had been preserved because of this concept, which was that there could be only one source of sovereignty in a nation. That source prior to the English Revolution of the Seventeenth Century was the king, as God's delegated representative. Once the king lost absolute power, the Parliament took up the mantle - "Parliamentary Sovereignty." It was this concept, far more powerful in the 1700's than the Divine Right of the British monarch, against which the colonists had to argue and ultimately fight.
During the ratification debates, when the thirteen States were debating ratifying the Constitution, there was concern among certain sects in the country that a religious test oath could be used to exclude those of a certain belief. Such oaths had been used that way in the past. One could argue that the exclusion of certain Christian sects from participation in the civil sphere had created a fear of a religious test oath. However, that was the colonists' experience in Europe. The religious test oaths of the American Colonies were not that type of oath. See Blog Post, "Oaths 1." The American oaths might exclude non-Christians and certain heretical Christian sects but not the majority of Christians.
Oaths 6
So, you might ask, "Didn't the Constitutional Convention have a point in stating that a religious test oath wouldn't work?" Here's a portion of the debate on the matter.
One of the arguments at the Convention was that religious test oaths are ineffectual.
"In one of his famous letters of 'a Landholder,' published in December, 1787, Oliver Ellsworth, a member of the Federal Constitutional Convention and later Chief Justice of this Court, included among his strong arguments against religious test oaths the following statement:
" 'In short, test laws are utterly ineffectual; they are no security at all, because men of loose principles will, by an external compliance, evade them. If they exclude any persons, it will be honest men, men of principle, who will rather suffer an injury than act contrary to the dictates of their consciences. . . .' "
"Quoted in Ford, Essays on the Constitution of the United States 170. See also 4 Elliott, Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 193."
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 494 n. 9 (1961).
Yet the Convention did apply a test oath - an oath to the Federal Constitution. Wouldn't the same logic apply? That "men of loose principles will . . . evade" the oath to the Constitution? And the test oath would exclude "men of principle" who are adamant in their commitment to pursuing a non-biblical republic, a commitment we are seeing applied today. NOtice that we are not seeing "men [and women] of principle" apply the Constitution in compliance with their oath to that document; we are seeing them write opinions and issue judgments in whatever way they can to undermine not only the Constitution but the biblical morals that formerly undergirded the society. The "principle" by which they live is "loose principle" with respect to both the Constitution and biblical morals. You lose both the Constitution and the Christian society. Why? Because they are wholly committed to a Secular Humanist society.
Ellsworth's Letter of "a Landholder" was much longer and covered the subject of test oaths much more than the quote above indicates. The full letter is below:
"Some very worthy persons, who have not had great advantages for information, have objected against that clause in the constitution which provides, that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. They have been afraid that this clause is unfavorable to religion. But my countrymen, the sole purpose and effect of it is to exclude persecution, and to secure to you the important right of religious liberty. We are almost the only people in the world, who have a full enjoyment of this important right of human nature. In our country every man has a right to worship God in that way which is most agreeable to his conscience. If he be a good and peaceable person he is liable to no penalties or incapacities on account of his religious sentiments; or in other words, he is no subject to persecution.
"But in other parts of the world, it has been, and still is, far different. Systems of religious error have been adopted, in times of ignorance. It has been the interest of tyrannical kings, popes, and prelates, to maintain these errors. When the clouds of ignorance began to vanish, and the people grew more enlightened, there was no other way to keep them in error, but to prohibit their altering their religious opinions by severe persecuting laws. In this way persecution became general throughout Europe. It was the universal opinion that one religion must be established by law; and that all who differed in their religious opinions, must suffer the vengeance of persecution. In pursuance of this opinion, when popery was abolished in England, and the Church of England was established in its stead, severe penalities were inflicted upon all who dissented from the established church. In the time of the civil wars, in the reign of Charles I., the presbyterians got the upper hand, and inflicted legal penalties upon all who differed from them in their sentiments respecting religious doctrines and discipline. When Charles II, was restored, the Church of England was likewise restored, and the presbyterians and other dissenters were laid under legal penalties and incapacities. It was in this reign, that a religious test was established as a qualification for office; that is, a law was made requiring all officers civil and military (among other things) to receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, according to the usage of the Church of England, written [within?] six months after their admission to office under the penalty of 500£ and disability to hold the office. And by another statute of the same reign, no person was capable of being elected to any office relating to the government of any city or corporation, unless, within a twelvemonth before, he had received the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England. The pretence for making these severe laws, by which all but churchmen were made incapable of any office civil or military, was to exclude the papists; but the real design was to exclude the protestant dissenters. From this account of test-laws, there arises an unfavorable presumption against them. But if we consider the nature of them and the effects which they are calculated to produce, we shall find that they are useless, tyrannical, and peculiarly unfit for the people of this country.
"A religious test is an act to be done, or profession to be made, relating to religion (such as partaking of the sacrament according to certain rites and forms, or declaring one's belief of certain doctrines,) for the purpose of determining whether his religious opinions are such, that he is admissable to a publick office. A test in favour of any one denomination of Christians would be to the last degree absurd in the United States. If it were in favour of either congregationalists, presbyterians, episcopalions, baptists, or quakers, it would incapacitate more than three-fourths of the American citizens for any publick office; and thus degrade them from the rank of freemen. There need no argument to prove that the majority of our citizens would never submit to this indignity.
"If any test-act were to be made, perhaps the least exceptionable would be one, requiring all persons appointed to office to declare at the time of their admission, their belief in the being of a God, and in the divine authority of the scriptures. In favour of such a test, it may be said, that one who believes these great truths, will not be so likely to violate his obligations to his country, as one who disbelieves them; we may have greater confidence in his integrity. But I answer: His making a declaration of such a belief is no security at all. For suppose him to be an unprincipled man, who believes neither the word nor the being of God; and to be governed merely by selfish motives; how easy is it for him to dissemble! how easy is it for him to make a public declaration of his belief in the creed which the law prescribes; and excuse himself by calling it a mere formality. This is the case with the test-laws and creeds in England. The most abandoned characters partake of the sacrament, in order to qualify themselves for public employments. The clergy are obliged by law to administer the ordinance unto them, and thus prostitute the most sacred office of religion, for it is a civil right in the party to receive the sacrament. In that country, subscribing to the thirty-nine articles is a test for administration into holy orders. And it is a fact, that many of the clergy do this, when at the same time they totally disbelieve several of the doctrines contained in them. In short, test-laws are utterly ineffectual: they are no security at all; because men of loose principles will, by an external compliance, evade them. If they exclude any persons, it will be honest men, men of principle, who will rather suffer an injury, than act contrary to the dictates of their consciences. If we mean to have those appointed to public offices, who are sincere friends to religion, we, the people who appoint them, must take care to choose such characters; and not rely upon such cob-web barriers as test-laws are.
"But to come to the true principle by which this question ought to be determined: The business of a civil government is to protect the citizen in his rights, to defend the community from hostile powers, and to promote the general welfare. Civil government has no business to meddle with the private opinions of the people. If I demean myself as a good citizen, I am accountable, not to man, but to God, for the religious opinions which I embrace, and the manner in which I worship the supreme being. If such had been the universal sentiments of mankind, and they had acted accordingly, persecution, the bane of truth and nurse of error, with her bloody axe and flaming hand, would never have turned so great a part of the world into a field of blood.
"But while I assert the rights of religious liberty, I would not deny that the civil power has a right, in some cases, to interfere in matters of religion. It has a right to prohibit and punish gross immoralities and impieties; because the open practice of these is of evil example and detriment. For this reason, I heartily approve of our laws against drunkenness, profane swearing, blasphemy, and professed atheism. But in this state, we have never thought it expedient to adopt a test-law; and yet I sincerely believe we have as great a proportion of religion and morality, as they have in England, where every person who holds a public office, must either be a saint by law, or a hypocrite by practice. A test-law is the parent of hypocrisy, and the offspring of error and the spirit of persecution. Legislatures have no right to set up an inquisition, and examine into the private opinions of men. Test-laws are useless and ineffectual, unjust and tyrannical; therefore the Convention have done wisely in excluding this engine of persecution, and providing that no religious test shall ever be required."
The Founders' Constitution, Aricle VI, Clause 3, Oliver Ellsworth, Landholder, NO. 7, 17 Dec. 1787, Essays 168-71, accessed at http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a6_3s14.html, May 24, 2016.
Notice that Ellsworth's argument against test oaths in principle ends with the warring of sects against each other, resulting in the persecution of one Christian sect by another Christian sect. At his most tolerant and pluralistic, Ellsworth still held to the law of God by stating that "the civil power" has a right "to prohibit and punish gross immoralities and impieties; because the open practice of these is of evil example and detriment." And his argument is purely pragmatic when he contends that oaths can be feigned by men of loose principle. In other words, Ellsworth wanted to keep a Christian culture but without requiring that the rulers of that culture confess outwardly to a Christian system of belief.
One of the arguments at the Convention was that religious test oaths are ineffectual.
"In one of his famous letters of 'a Landholder,' published in December, 1787, Oliver Ellsworth, a member of the Federal Constitutional Convention and later Chief Justice of this Court, included among his strong arguments against religious test oaths the following statement:
" 'In short, test laws are utterly ineffectual; they are no security at all, because men of loose principles will, by an external compliance, evade them. If they exclude any persons, it will be honest men, men of principle, who will rather suffer an injury than act contrary to the dictates of their consciences. . . .' "
"Quoted in Ford, Essays on the Constitution of the United States 170. See also 4 Elliott, Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 193."
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 494 n. 9 (1961).
Yet the Convention did apply a test oath - an oath to the Federal Constitution. Wouldn't the same logic apply? That "men of loose principles will . . . evade" the oath to the Constitution? And the test oath would exclude "men of principle" who are adamant in their commitment to pursuing a non-biblical republic, a commitment we are seeing applied today. NOtice that we are not seeing "men [and women] of principle" apply the Constitution in compliance with their oath to that document; we are seeing them write opinions and issue judgments in whatever way they can to undermine not only the Constitution but the biblical morals that formerly undergirded the society. The "principle" by which they live is "loose principle" with respect to both the Constitution and biblical morals. You lose both the Constitution and the Christian society. Why? Because they are wholly committed to a Secular Humanist society.
Ellsworth's Letter of "a Landholder" was much longer and covered the subject of test oaths much more than the quote above indicates. The full letter is below:
"Some very worthy persons, who have not had great advantages for information, have objected against that clause in the constitution which provides, that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. They have been afraid that this clause is unfavorable to religion. But my countrymen, the sole purpose and effect of it is to exclude persecution, and to secure to you the important right of religious liberty. We are almost the only people in the world, who have a full enjoyment of this important right of human nature. In our country every man has a right to worship God in that way which is most agreeable to his conscience. If he be a good and peaceable person he is liable to no penalties or incapacities on account of his religious sentiments; or in other words, he is no subject to persecution.
"But in other parts of the world, it has been, and still is, far different. Systems of religious error have been adopted, in times of ignorance. It has been the interest of tyrannical kings, popes, and prelates, to maintain these errors. When the clouds of ignorance began to vanish, and the people grew more enlightened, there was no other way to keep them in error, but to prohibit their altering their religious opinions by severe persecuting laws. In this way persecution became general throughout Europe. It was the universal opinion that one religion must be established by law; and that all who differed in their religious opinions, must suffer the vengeance of persecution. In pursuance of this opinion, when popery was abolished in England, and the Church of England was established in its stead, severe penalities were inflicted upon all who dissented from the established church. In the time of the civil wars, in the reign of Charles I., the presbyterians got the upper hand, and inflicted legal penalties upon all who differed from them in their sentiments respecting religious doctrines and discipline. When Charles II, was restored, the Church of England was likewise restored, and the presbyterians and other dissenters were laid under legal penalties and incapacities. It was in this reign, that a religious test was established as a qualification for office; that is, a law was made requiring all officers civil and military (among other things) to receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, according to the usage of the Church of England, written [within?] six months after their admission to office under the penalty of 500£ and disability to hold the office. And by another statute of the same reign, no person was capable of being elected to any office relating to the government of any city or corporation, unless, within a twelvemonth before, he had received the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England. The pretence for making these severe laws, by which all but churchmen were made incapable of any office civil or military, was to exclude the papists; but the real design was to exclude the protestant dissenters. From this account of test-laws, there arises an unfavorable presumption against them. But if we consider the nature of them and the effects which they are calculated to produce, we shall find that they are useless, tyrannical, and peculiarly unfit for the people of this country.
"A religious test is an act to be done, or profession to be made, relating to religion (such as partaking of the sacrament according to certain rites and forms, or declaring one's belief of certain doctrines,) for the purpose of determining whether his religious opinions are such, that he is admissable to a publick office. A test in favour of any one denomination of Christians would be to the last degree absurd in the United States. If it were in favour of either congregationalists, presbyterians, episcopalions, baptists, or quakers, it would incapacitate more than three-fourths of the American citizens for any publick office; and thus degrade them from the rank of freemen. There need no argument to prove that the majority of our citizens would never submit to this indignity.
"If any test-act were to be made, perhaps the least exceptionable would be one, requiring all persons appointed to office to declare at the time of their admission, their belief in the being of a God, and in the divine authority of the scriptures. In favour of such a test, it may be said, that one who believes these great truths, will not be so likely to violate his obligations to his country, as one who disbelieves them; we may have greater confidence in his integrity. But I answer: His making a declaration of such a belief is no security at all. For suppose him to be an unprincipled man, who believes neither the word nor the being of God; and to be governed merely by selfish motives; how easy is it for him to dissemble! how easy is it for him to make a public declaration of his belief in the creed which the law prescribes; and excuse himself by calling it a mere formality. This is the case with the test-laws and creeds in England. The most abandoned characters partake of the sacrament, in order to qualify themselves for public employments. The clergy are obliged by law to administer the ordinance unto them, and thus prostitute the most sacred office of religion, for it is a civil right in the party to receive the sacrament. In that country, subscribing to the thirty-nine articles is a test for administration into holy orders. And it is a fact, that many of the clergy do this, when at the same time they totally disbelieve several of the doctrines contained in them. In short, test-laws are utterly ineffectual: they are no security at all; because men of loose principles will, by an external compliance, evade them. If they exclude any persons, it will be honest men, men of principle, who will rather suffer an injury, than act contrary to the dictates of their consciences. If we mean to have those appointed to public offices, who are sincere friends to religion, we, the people who appoint them, must take care to choose such characters; and not rely upon such cob-web barriers as test-laws are.
"But to come to the true principle by which this question ought to be determined: The business of a civil government is to protect the citizen in his rights, to defend the community from hostile powers, and to promote the general welfare. Civil government has no business to meddle with the private opinions of the people. If I demean myself as a good citizen, I am accountable, not to man, but to God, for the religious opinions which I embrace, and the manner in which I worship the supreme being. If such had been the universal sentiments of mankind, and they had acted accordingly, persecution, the bane of truth and nurse of error, with her bloody axe and flaming hand, would never have turned so great a part of the world into a field of blood.
"But while I assert the rights of religious liberty, I would not deny that the civil power has a right, in some cases, to interfere in matters of religion. It has a right to prohibit and punish gross immoralities and impieties; because the open practice of these is of evil example and detriment. For this reason, I heartily approve of our laws against drunkenness, profane swearing, blasphemy, and professed atheism. But in this state, we have never thought it expedient to adopt a test-law; and yet I sincerely believe we have as great a proportion of religion and morality, as they have in England, where every person who holds a public office, must either be a saint by law, or a hypocrite by practice. A test-law is the parent of hypocrisy, and the offspring of error and the spirit of persecution. Legislatures have no right to set up an inquisition, and examine into the private opinions of men. Test-laws are useless and ineffectual, unjust and tyrannical; therefore the Convention have done wisely in excluding this engine of persecution, and providing that no religious test shall ever be required."
The Founders' Constitution, Aricle VI, Clause 3, Oliver Ellsworth, Landholder, NO. 7, 17 Dec. 1787, Essays 168-71, accessed at http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a6_3s14.html, May 24, 2016.
Notice that Ellsworth's argument against test oaths in principle ends with the warring of sects against each other, resulting in the persecution of one Christian sect by another Christian sect. At his most tolerant and pluralistic, Ellsworth still held to the law of God by stating that "the civil power" has a right "to prohibit and punish gross immoralities and impieties; because the open practice of these is of evil example and detriment." And his argument is purely pragmatic when he contends that oaths can be feigned by men of loose principle. In other words, Ellsworth wanted to keep a Christian culture but without requiring that the rulers of that culture confess outwardly to a Christian system of belief.
Oaths 5
Evidence of the pervasive effect of allowing the federal government to forbid religious test oaths in the States of the Union as completely as is the case for federal government offices was the 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case, Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), is touted as the opinion that settled whether the Article VI religious test clause ban applies to the States after the Fourteenth Amendment. I've copied the Wikipedia article on the matter because it sums up the opinion and the lack of resolution of the issue by that opinion. The opinion actually never addressed Article VI because it applied the First Amendment to decide the case.
"In the early 1960s, the Governor of Maryland appointed Roy Torcaso (November 13, 1910 – June 9, 2007) as a notary public. At the time, the Constitution of Maryland required 'a declaration of belief in the existence of God' in order for a person to hold 'any office of profit or trust in this State.'
"Torcaso, an atheist, refused to make such a statement, and his appointment was consequently revoked. Torcaso, believing his constitutional rights to freedom of religious expression had been infringed, filed suit in a Maryland Circuit Court, only to be rebuffed. The Circuit Court rejected his claim, and the Maryland Court of Appeals held that the requirement in the Maryland Constitution for a declaration of belief in God as a qualification for office was self-executing and did not require any implementing legislation to be enacted by the state legislature.
"The Court of Appeals justified its decision thus:
"The petitioner is not compelled to believe or disbelieve, under threat of punishment or other compulsion. True, unless he makes the declaration of belief, he cannot hold public office in Maryland, but he is not compelled to hold office.
"Torcaso took the matter to the United States Supreme Court, where it was heard on April 24, 1961.
"The Court unanimously found that Maryland's requirement for a person holding public office to state a belief in God violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
"The Court had previously established in Everson v. Board of Education (1947):
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
"Writing for the Court, Justice Hugo Black recalled Everson v. Board of Education, and explicitly linked Torcaso v. Watkins to its conclusions:
"There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us — it sets up a religious test which was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public 'office of profit or trust' in Maryland.
"... We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.
"Rebuffing the judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals, Justice Black added: 'The fact, however, that a person is not compelled to hold public office cannot possibly be an excuse for barring him from office by state-imposed criteria forbidden by the Constitution.'
"The Court did not base its holding on the no religious test clause of Article VI. In Footnote 1 of the opinion Justice Black wrote:
"'Appellant also claimed that the State's test oath requirement violates the provision of Art. VI of the Federal Constitution that 'no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.' Because we are reversing the judgment on other grounds, we find it unnecessary to consider appellant's contention that this provision applies to state as well as federal offices.'"
The Wikipedia article concludes: "The question of whether the no religious test clause binds the states remains unresolved. Given the Court's First Amendment holding, that issue is largely academic."
"Torcaso v Watkins," Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins, accessed on April 2, 2016.
Ironically, considering the number of religious issues intersecting civil government that seem to originate or, at least, become issues in the State of Alabama, Hugo Black, the Justice from Alabama, was the author of the majority opinion.
Therefore, the U.S. Constitutional Convention rejected religious test oaths for federal offices only and appeared to have no intention, that I can discern, to forbid religious test oaths for offices in the civil governing of the States. Yet, 174 years later and 94 years after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court did apply the First Amendment to forbid such in the States in Torcaso. Thus, the founders' vision of a rationalistic basis for human reason and governance, unfettered by God's word, has descended from the child to the parents, so to speak. For the federal government was the creation of the States, and now its requirement of tolerance for all religious faiths has infected all the States of the Union.
"In the early 1960s, the Governor of Maryland appointed Roy Torcaso (November 13, 1910 – June 9, 2007) as a notary public. At the time, the Constitution of Maryland required 'a declaration of belief in the existence of God' in order for a person to hold 'any office of profit or trust in this State.'
"Torcaso, an atheist, refused to make such a statement, and his appointment was consequently revoked. Torcaso, believing his constitutional rights to freedom of religious expression had been infringed, filed suit in a Maryland Circuit Court, only to be rebuffed. The Circuit Court rejected his claim, and the Maryland Court of Appeals held that the requirement in the Maryland Constitution for a declaration of belief in God as a qualification for office was self-executing and did not require any implementing legislation to be enacted by the state legislature.
"The Court of Appeals justified its decision thus:
"The petitioner is not compelled to believe or disbelieve, under threat of punishment or other compulsion. True, unless he makes the declaration of belief, he cannot hold public office in Maryland, but he is not compelled to hold office.
"Torcaso took the matter to the United States Supreme Court, where it was heard on April 24, 1961.
"The Court unanimously found that Maryland's requirement for a person holding public office to state a belief in God violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
"The Court had previously established in Everson v. Board of Education (1947):
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
"Writing for the Court, Justice Hugo Black recalled Everson v. Board of Education, and explicitly linked Torcaso v. Watkins to its conclusions:
"There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us — it sets up a religious test which was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public 'office of profit or trust' in Maryland.
"... We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.
"Rebuffing the judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals, Justice Black added: 'The fact, however, that a person is not compelled to hold public office cannot possibly be an excuse for barring him from office by state-imposed criteria forbidden by the Constitution.'
"The Court did not base its holding on the no religious test clause of Article VI. In Footnote 1 of the opinion Justice Black wrote:
"'Appellant also claimed that the State's test oath requirement violates the provision of Art. VI of the Federal Constitution that 'no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.' Because we are reversing the judgment on other grounds, we find it unnecessary to consider appellant's contention that this provision applies to state as well as federal offices.'"
The Wikipedia article concludes: "The question of whether the no religious test clause binds the states remains unresolved. Given the Court's First Amendment holding, that issue is largely academic."
"Torcaso v Watkins," Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins, accessed on April 2, 2016.
Ironically, considering the number of religious issues intersecting civil government that seem to originate or, at least, become issues in the State of Alabama, Hugo Black, the Justice from Alabama, was the author of the majority opinion.
Therefore, the U.S. Constitutional Convention rejected religious test oaths for federal offices only and appeared to have no intention, that I can discern, to forbid religious test oaths for offices in the civil governing of the States. Yet, 174 years later and 94 years after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court did apply the First Amendment to forbid such in the States in Torcaso. Thus, the founders' vision of a rationalistic basis for human reason and governance, unfettered by God's word, has descended from the child to the parents, so to speak. For the federal government was the creation of the States, and now its requirement of tolerance for all religious faiths has infected all the States of the Union.
Judicial Tyranny 4 - Deceit & Treachery are the Foundation & the Fruit
Justice Antonin Scalia died recently. He was an originalist, a judge who thinks courts should use the meaning intended by those who wrote a law or a constitution. Within the legal community, his viewpoint is considered comical, quaint, or impractical. Among the citizens, his viewpoint is considered faithful to the law, which the citizens' representatives enacted on behalf of the citizens. So, to what should a judge aspire - faithful interpretation of the law and the facts or cleverness in finding a way around the original meaning in order to impose your personal opinion upon the law? With very few exceptions, law schools do not teach constitutional law; they teach how to change the U.S. Constitution by ingenious argument. It's the way to obtaining large attorney fees and to a professional reputation that makes you're the toast at cocktail parties.
Thus, with a few conservative exceptions, the citizens are being undermined by the legal community. You know, those professionals with "esquire," a title of nobility, behind their name. The citizens elect people to represent them, then the courts, which are comprised of those from the legal community, "interpret" the "law" to mean something contrary to what the people voted for. The judge's opinion is fed to him or her by the argument of the attorneys who use their ingenuity to create a philosophical lever the judge can use to alter the law. Then the judge changes the law to something completely unintended by the legislators, the executive branch and the voters. This is then called "the rule of law," and you are expected to obey the new "law." These "judges" deceive the people, then say, "You must obey our opinions, or you're violating lawful authority." This is the rule of law in action in today's America. Is this why Americans fought the Revolutionary War - to be liberated from a tyrannical king and parliament, only to be delivered into the hand of lying deceivers?
Justice Antonin Scalia was not right merely because he was a conservative judge. He was right because he was right. And he was honest. He actually cared about being honest when determining the facts and the law in a case. Liberals are not wrong because they have a different political perspective from me or Justice Scalia. They're wrong because they're wrong and completely dishonest. They really don't care about the law and the facts of a case. They want to force us to "progress."
Perhaps you're thinking, "You're just extremely arrogant about your position." But my assertion is not so hard to believe and accept. Think about someone who believes the founding fathers of our country are just "dead, white men," who were bigoted slave owners and some of whom were superstitious because they actually believed the bible is the word of God. In the mind of progressives, the U.S. Constitution, as originally conceived and written, holds the human race back from progress; it's not the premier governing document that helped the human race leap forward in progress.
In other words, from the moment these "liberal" judges swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution, they have no intention of following, upholding, or obeying the U.S. Constitution. They lie when they swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Why would we expect them to interpret the facts of a case accurately or apply the law honestly? Each case presents a potential opportunity to advance the "progressive" cause, which often involves total distortion of the Constitution.
These "liberal judges" should not be judges; they shouldn't even be legislators, even though that's closer to describing the type of attitude toward law which they hold. Or they should be community organizers. Then they could pass laws or urge the populace to adopt amendments to the Constitution. But then they would have to remain lawyers and not be judges, and it might be difficult to get paid an adequate lawyer salary for such endeavors. They would also have to convince voters to favor abortion, gay rights, and other issues that the voters do not favor. Apparently, that's just too hard and takes too long.
The more cunning and well-educated among "liberal judges" are able to write lengthy, persuasive opinions which pretend to follow the Constitution. The more difficult it is to fit a square, progressive peg into the round, constitutional hole, the more complicated the writing. And the more that judge or justice is lauded as a genius within the legal community. That's why Scalia's writings, which cut through the legerdemain of liberal judges and went to the heart of the issue, were so good. Not only was he correct on the law and the facts, but he couldn't resist scalding the dogs who would complicate and subvert the Constitution with high sounding, but deceptive rhetoric.
Liberals will tell you that liberal judges simply make room to apply reason when applying the law. In other words, conservatives are wooden, inflexible, unable to apply the law to the real world and real people. But this is a straw man argument. Originalism as a system of interpretation has plenty of room for application of the law in the real world and to real people. However, the liberal has again lied when making such an argument. They don't care about flexible yet faithful application of the constitution or a statute; they simply want an excuse to change the law. And they know that once they've set precedent by misinterpreting a law or constitutional provision, conservatives will have to follow. Why? Because they respect precedent. But liberals don't. So, it's like a ratchet, a tool that will twist a screw or bolt only one way. The liberal despises the conservatives judicial philosophy publicly but secretly loves it because they can use it to hold conservatives to their agenda even more effectively and permanently. They tell the conservative judge: "We get to change the law, then you have to adhere to it. That's what you believe, right, Mr. Conservative?"
Then there's the living constitution lie. You've heard it before. The liberals believe in a living constitution; therefore, the conservative must believe in a dead constitution, right? But it's the other way around. The liberals kill the constitution by making it a dead letter. In making the constitution so flexible that they can fit their own personal beliefs into it whenever it's convenient to do so, the liberal kills any meaning a constitution should have. A constitution is like a foundation is to a house; it's supposed to be something solid and unshifting and that will keep the house from falling. By making a constitution flexible, the liberal destroys its very purpose. And by changing a law from what it was intended to be, the liberal removes one of the most important aspects of the law - the foreseeability as to what conduct is forbidden.
What the liberal does with the constitution is kill it. They don't believe in a constitution at all. They believe in being limitless, so they can advance their own personal agenda or their favorite philosophy's agenda. It's the killing of the law for which the liberal is culpable. So who is it that believes in a living constitution - the liberal or the conservative?
Lastly, the liberal is an unbeliever and covenant-breaker. Law and faith are inextricably connected concepts. God is a lawgiver, and his law is effective for all of human history, not just a flexible or temporary guide. Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:17-8.
Unlike the bible, the U.S. Constitution, contrary to what some devotees effusively promote, is merely a man's document. An ingenious document, but in any event, a human creation. The Constitution may contain some timeless truths, but it is nonetheless subject to error. That's one reason the authors placed within it the ability to amend the document. The bible is infallible and inerrant. It cannot be amended -- ever.
So, what does that say about non-Christians who allege the bible is merely a man's document, to which we are not obligated to obey if we choose not to obey it? It means they don't respect the word of the living God, the creator of them and all things. They are rebels to the Creator, the origin of all law. They are traitors to the truth and refuse to submit to God's law. If they do not respect God's law, how much less would they respect a 230-year-old document written by men? If such persons cannot respect God's foundational document for life and governance - the bible, how can we expect them to honestly and truly swear an oath to defend and uphold as judges a document created by men? How foolish can we be?
What is sad is the conservative judge who believes in adhering to law and constitution and precedent. They're a tool of the progressive, who has no problem upending precedent completely to advance their personal agenda, then the liberal hypocritically demands that the conservative adhere to the new precedent. "It's the rule of law now, you know," the liberal says. It's like casting pearls before swine: The liberal simply swallows up your precious judicial principles with the slop without a thought for high jurisprudential principle, then they turn and rend you to pieces if you try to grab up your pearls before they eat them. Thus we see the high-minded liberal judge in action.
These are the so-called "moderates" nominated by liberal presidents. Conservative presidents attempt to nominate Scalia-type judges, but these judges are labeled "extremists" and are borked by the liberals in the Senate. Then the conservative president is forced to nominate a "moderate conservative," who will adhere to liberal precedent. See how it works? Heads they win, tails we lose. Believe me when I say that this process is what liberals call even-handed, non-partisanship. For them, dishonesty is judicial non-partisanship, and faithfulness to the law and constitution is right-wing extremism. There was a time when such betrayal of the people and undermining of the law would have called for impeachment or tar-and-feathering. Now it gets them a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court or a professorship at an Ivy League Law School, where they can teach the next generation of lawyers and justices.
Thus, with a few conservative exceptions, the citizens are being undermined by the legal community. You know, those professionals with "esquire," a title of nobility, behind their name. The citizens elect people to represent them, then the courts, which are comprised of those from the legal community, "interpret" the "law" to mean something contrary to what the people voted for. The judge's opinion is fed to him or her by the argument of the attorneys who use their ingenuity to create a philosophical lever the judge can use to alter the law. Then the judge changes the law to something completely unintended by the legislators, the executive branch and the voters. This is then called "the rule of law," and you are expected to obey the new "law." These "judges" deceive the people, then say, "You must obey our opinions, or you're violating lawful authority." This is the rule of law in action in today's America. Is this why Americans fought the Revolutionary War - to be liberated from a tyrannical king and parliament, only to be delivered into the hand of lying deceivers?
Justice Antonin Scalia was not right merely because he was a conservative judge. He was right because he was right. And he was honest. He actually cared about being honest when determining the facts and the law in a case. Liberals are not wrong because they have a different political perspective from me or Justice Scalia. They're wrong because they're wrong and completely dishonest. They really don't care about the law and the facts of a case. They want to force us to "progress."
Perhaps you're thinking, "You're just extremely arrogant about your position." But my assertion is not so hard to believe and accept. Think about someone who believes the founding fathers of our country are just "dead, white men," who were bigoted slave owners and some of whom were superstitious because they actually believed the bible is the word of God. In the mind of progressives, the U.S. Constitution, as originally conceived and written, holds the human race back from progress; it's not the premier governing document that helped the human race leap forward in progress.
In other words, from the moment these "liberal" judges swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution, they have no intention of following, upholding, or obeying the U.S. Constitution. They lie when they swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Why would we expect them to interpret the facts of a case accurately or apply the law honestly? Each case presents a potential opportunity to advance the "progressive" cause, which often involves total distortion of the Constitution.
These "liberal judges" should not be judges; they shouldn't even be legislators, even though that's closer to describing the type of attitude toward law which they hold. Or they should be community organizers. Then they could pass laws or urge the populace to adopt amendments to the Constitution. But then they would have to remain lawyers and not be judges, and it might be difficult to get paid an adequate lawyer salary for such endeavors. They would also have to convince voters to favor abortion, gay rights, and other issues that the voters do not favor. Apparently, that's just too hard and takes too long.
The more cunning and well-educated among "liberal judges" are able to write lengthy, persuasive opinions which pretend to follow the Constitution. The more difficult it is to fit a square, progressive peg into the round, constitutional hole, the more complicated the writing. And the more that judge or justice is lauded as a genius within the legal community. That's why Scalia's writings, which cut through the legerdemain of liberal judges and went to the heart of the issue, were so good. Not only was he correct on the law and the facts, but he couldn't resist scalding the dogs who would complicate and subvert the Constitution with high sounding, but deceptive rhetoric.
Liberals will tell you that liberal judges simply make room to apply reason when applying the law. In other words, conservatives are wooden, inflexible, unable to apply the law to the real world and real people. But this is a straw man argument. Originalism as a system of interpretation has plenty of room for application of the law in the real world and to real people. However, the liberal has again lied when making such an argument. They don't care about flexible yet faithful application of the constitution or a statute; they simply want an excuse to change the law. And they know that once they've set precedent by misinterpreting a law or constitutional provision, conservatives will have to follow. Why? Because they respect precedent. But liberals don't. So, it's like a ratchet, a tool that will twist a screw or bolt only one way. The liberal despises the conservatives judicial philosophy publicly but secretly loves it because they can use it to hold conservatives to their agenda even more effectively and permanently. They tell the conservative judge: "We get to change the law, then you have to adhere to it. That's what you believe, right, Mr. Conservative?"
Then there's the living constitution lie. You've heard it before. The liberals believe in a living constitution; therefore, the conservative must believe in a dead constitution, right? But it's the other way around. The liberals kill the constitution by making it a dead letter. In making the constitution so flexible that they can fit their own personal beliefs into it whenever it's convenient to do so, the liberal kills any meaning a constitution should have. A constitution is like a foundation is to a house; it's supposed to be something solid and unshifting and that will keep the house from falling. By making a constitution flexible, the liberal destroys its very purpose. And by changing a law from what it was intended to be, the liberal removes one of the most important aspects of the law - the foreseeability as to what conduct is forbidden.
What the liberal does with the constitution is kill it. They don't believe in a constitution at all. They believe in being limitless, so they can advance their own personal agenda or their favorite philosophy's agenda. It's the killing of the law for which the liberal is culpable. So who is it that believes in a living constitution - the liberal or the conservative?
Lastly, the liberal is an unbeliever and covenant-breaker. Law and faith are inextricably connected concepts. God is a lawgiver, and his law is effective for all of human history, not just a flexible or temporary guide. Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:17-8.
Unlike the bible, the U.S. Constitution, contrary to what some devotees effusively promote, is merely a man's document. An ingenious document, but in any event, a human creation. The Constitution may contain some timeless truths, but it is nonetheless subject to error. That's one reason the authors placed within it the ability to amend the document. The bible is infallible and inerrant. It cannot be amended -- ever.
So, what does that say about non-Christians who allege the bible is merely a man's document, to which we are not obligated to obey if we choose not to obey it? It means they don't respect the word of the living God, the creator of them and all things. They are rebels to the Creator, the origin of all law. They are traitors to the truth and refuse to submit to God's law. If they do not respect God's law, how much less would they respect a 230-year-old document written by men? If such persons cannot respect God's foundational document for life and governance - the bible, how can we expect them to honestly and truly swear an oath to defend and uphold as judges a document created by men? How foolish can we be?
What is sad is the conservative judge who believes in adhering to law and constitution and precedent. They're a tool of the progressive, who has no problem upending precedent completely to advance their personal agenda, then the liberal hypocritically demands that the conservative adhere to the new precedent. "It's the rule of law now, you know," the liberal says. It's like casting pearls before swine: The liberal simply swallows up your precious judicial principles with the slop without a thought for high jurisprudential principle, then they turn and rend you to pieces if you try to grab up your pearls before they eat them. Thus we see the high-minded liberal judge in action.
These are the so-called "moderates" nominated by liberal presidents. Conservative presidents attempt to nominate Scalia-type judges, but these judges are labeled "extremists" and are borked by the liberals in the Senate. Then the conservative president is forced to nominate a "moderate conservative," who will adhere to liberal precedent. See how it works? Heads they win, tails we lose. Believe me when I say that this process is what liberals call even-handed, non-partisanship. For them, dishonesty is judicial non-partisanship, and faithfulness to the law and constitution is right-wing extremism. There was a time when such betrayal of the people and undermining of the law would have called for impeachment or tar-and-feathering. Now it gets them a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court or a professorship at an Ivy League Law School, where they can teach the next generation of lawyers and justices.
Romans 1 & Gender Confusion 1
Our perspective is always suspect. If not, there would have been no reason for the God who created us and the universe to issue His commandments describing what is righteous and unrighteous, in other words, how to avoid following your own predilections and live live rightly. If you have any definition of normal that deviates in any way from the norms of your Creator, you are wrong. And it is you who must change, not the Creator.
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination to the Lord thy God." Deuteronomy 22:5.
A society so wealthy that it's men can engage in gender transformation instead of the protection and support of women and their progeny is too wealthy and comfortable. That society is set for an adjustment by God Almighty. What will restore the creation order? A cataclysmic economic collapse returning us to a dark age? A takeover by another culture having the will to enforce the creation order of male and female at any cost? Or some other radical alteration?
The Christian, who knows God rules in the affairs of man, knows this is coming and can prepare. The Humanist, the worshipper of man, thinks things are manageable and will prepare to accommodate the perversion of mankind. He will change the laws, the language, the physical structures of his society, attempting to permanently transform the culture. Before he gets very far, or at least until God can demonstrate to the world the folly of such policies, God appears on the scene in one form or another to correct matters. This is not the end of the world; this is the revelation in history of the truth of God's Word over man's.
It is the victory of God's word over His enemies. Those who side with God's word are the ones who are on the right side of history, no matter how history appears at any one snapshot in time. We know this from His word. See Schlossberg's "Idols for Destruction."
We know from Romans 1 that God allows the perversion of men who pervert the nature and personality of God. In what way has our nation perverted God? By saying our law-word is the only law, thereby denying God His position as King of the universe. This worship of ourselves results in all the perverseness of man becoming normal. Like the Israelites in the wilderness, we eat to the full of our greed and lusts. Our successes in gaining our desires carry within them the just punishments for our idolatry.
This concept of societal judgment is not just FOR the sin of homosexuality. Homosexuality is a part of and a precursor of judgment. Notice first of all that the judgment comes upon those who pervert God, or at least, pervert Him in their own minds.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them." Romans 1:18-19. There is no mention of sexuality or gender in the start of this passage. It's about man's view of God Himself and man's view of Him; it is theology that is at issue. Once man departs from the truth of God, then other departures will follow.
Not glorifying God for who He is and not being thankful to God in the modern world has become acceptable, even objective and scientific. The denial of the true God, even any God at all, has become in many quarters and professions the ground zero for acceptance, advancement, and the touchstone of truth. Sinful man thinks God irrelevant to the progress and life of humanity. This is a perversion of the true God, who not only created but also maintains and renews the physical creation, enabling man to breathe, work, and think.
To deny this God is a perversion of reality on the cosmic level. Such a people call themselves "scientific," "objective," "tolerant," but the bible says that they are "professing themselves to be wise, [but] they became fools." Romans 1:22. They replaced "the glory of the uncorruptible God" with "an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." Romans 1:23. They replaced the Creator with the Creation, both the Creation of God and the Creations of man.
Man has created institutions, methods of thought, and philosophies which he considers primary or even foundational to the existence of the universe. Modern man thinks himself very smart, even though he is re-living the life of ancient man, who also replaced the worship of God with the worship of creation, its mysteries, its primal forces, its beauty. Modern man's "idols" are of a more sophisticated brand, but they are idols nonetheless. See Schlossberg's Idols for Destruction, ibid.
We have come full circle, and we will re-live the same devolution that ancient man experienced. "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 1:24-25.
Notice that the dishonoring of the body occurs as a result of the new, progressive thought that we can learn the "real" foundation for reality and can reject the God of the bible. Notice this change in philosophy need not start with gender confusion; it merely rejects the glory of God as the foundation of reality and the object of worship. The initiation of gender confusion is with God Himself - "God . . . gave them up to uncleanness." "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections," followed by a description of the homosexual lifestyle. Romans 1:26.
Who are "them?" If the passage is referring to an individualistic judgment - pervert the true God in your individual thinking and He will pervert your sexuality, then we have a limited form of judgment. But is God limited to such individualized judgment? He, of course, is not. Could His judgment fall on the entire society, affecting people to the point that even if they don't adopt the same perverse philosophy as their leaders and educators, they face the same affects on their sexuality - a power coercing them toward perverse sexuality? If so, then this judgment is so much more fearful and destructive than we ever imagined.
Such judgment would be covenantal judgment. If the entire society suffers because of the perverse thinking and worship of its covenant leadership, then the people's choice of such leadership comes back upon them in the form of a perverting of their own sons and daughters. Hearkening back to the three key institutions of society - church, state, and family, if the people of the society allow the fools professing to be wise to lead them, does covenantal judgment then run downhill upon them?
The history of Israel demonstrates that the covenant faithfulness or unfaithfulness of the kings and priests of Israel affected the entire population. For example, the faithfulness of King David resulted in the greatest era of Israel's kingdom history, while the perverseness of Amaziah resulted in defeat and judgment, culminating generations later in the Israelites being taken captive to Babylon, a pagan nation.
Our modern wise men assert all sorts of other natural and historical explanations for those events. And that's logically what they should do, for in perverting the true God, they also must pervert history in order to deny His rightful judgment upon mankind. If they can deny that God judged in history, they can move society away from the fear of God and toward their idea of progress, which is always liberation from the law of the biblical God. Even more importantly and for their psychic well-being, they must deny His authority to judge in eternity. Denying the creation is the most prominent method for accomplishing this so-called "liberation."
Christians play along by being guilt manipulated. You'll hear this: "You really believe a loving God would judge people so harshly?!" The correct answer is: "Only a loving God would judge so harshly! He is holy, all powerful, and the judge of all. Would you believe Him to be something He is not!?" But instead, they capitulate in order to not appear "harsh."
They think that if the wicked accuse them of being unloving, it's true. It's not true. The most loving message a Christian can bring to the wicked is this: "God almighty is angry with you all the day long, for you have sinned against His law and rejected the salvation offered in His Son. Repent and believe the gospel and He will wipe away your sins and make you His child." Christians are to rule by applying this truth to all humanity, thereby bringing them into the truth that liberates them as individuals and provides a society of people who respect God's word above man's. This is evangelism, this is our Lord's prayer that "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."
The above message warns a person of great danger facing him for his perversion of the true God and at the same time, gives him hope of being pardoned by the Judge of the universe and of his very soul. As related in the hymn Amazing Grace, "Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, and grace my fears relieved; how precious did that grace appear, the hour I first believed." The preaching of the gospel of grace brings people into the truth of the loving God of judgment.
Watering down that message gives the person an "out." "I don't have to believe what you believe; it's just what you believe." No, it is the message of the authoritative Son of God sent through the Jewish people and their book of God-inspired warnings and messages of comfort and liberty from sin and judgment. Modern man alleges that message is a made-up "opiate of the masses," invented to keep them submissive like cattle.
Yet, these same people when they put on a political mantle, impose their beliefs as if their word is absolute truth. They shift and change the law to fit their personal beliefs and desires and demand all others follow, not because God commands it but because they command it. They rule with an iron fist, expecting utter submission to their changeable, cruel, and corrupted word; they've exchanged the incorruptible God for themselves. And God turns them to pervert themselves, and if necessary, he allows them to pervert the entire society. A fearful judgment indeed!
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:28-32.
Notice that the final passage of Romans 1 places the same judgment upon those who approve of them as those who commit the acts. As society becomes more and more approving of these vile affections and perversions - intellectual, theological, and social - it becomes more and more perverted - total depravity is the only limit. The end is death, but what form does "death" take for an entire society? We can at the least assert that such a society declines from its former position of prominence, if it had been prominent previously.
The premier example of the fate of such societies that is set forth in scripture is a society that rapidly descended into homosexual rape as the initiation ceremony for those visiting that society. "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." Jude 1:7.
The questions for a society already in such decline are: Can it be stopped, even reversed? If so, how?
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination to the Lord thy God." Deuteronomy 22:5.
A society so wealthy that it's men can engage in gender transformation instead of the protection and support of women and their progeny is too wealthy and comfortable. That society is set for an adjustment by God Almighty. What will restore the creation order? A cataclysmic economic collapse returning us to a dark age? A takeover by another culture having the will to enforce the creation order of male and female at any cost? Or some other radical alteration?
The Christian, who knows God rules in the affairs of man, knows this is coming and can prepare. The Humanist, the worshipper of man, thinks things are manageable and will prepare to accommodate the perversion of mankind. He will change the laws, the language, the physical structures of his society, attempting to permanently transform the culture. Before he gets very far, or at least until God can demonstrate to the world the folly of such policies, God appears on the scene in one form or another to correct matters. This is not the end of the world; this is the revelation in history of the truth of God's Word over man's.
It is the victory of God's word over His enemies. Those who side with God's word are the ones who are on the right side of history, no matter how history appears at any one snapshot in time. We know this from His word. See Schlossberg's "Idols for Destruction."
We know from Romans 1 that God allows the perversion of men who pervert the nature and personality of God. In what way has our nation perverted God? By saying our law-word is the only law, thereby denying God His position as King of the universe. This worship of ourselves results in all the perverseness of man becoming normal. Like the Israelites in the wilderness, we eat to the full of our greed and lusts. Our successes in gaining our desires carry within them the just punishments for our idolatry.
This concept of societal judgment is not just FOR the sin of homosexuality. Homosexuality is a part of and a precursor of judgment. Notice first of all that the judgment comes upon those who pervert God, or at least, pervert Him in their own minds.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them." Romans 1:18-19. There is no mention of sexuality or gender in the start of this passage. It's about man's view of God Himself and man's view of Him; it is theology that is at issue. Once man departs from the truth of God, then other departures will follow.
Not glorifying God for who He is and not being thankful to God in the modern world has become acceptable, even objective and scientific. The denial of the true God, even any God at all, has become in many quarters and professions the ground zero for acceptance, advancement, and the touchstone of truth. Sinful man thinks God irrelevant to the progress and life of humanity. This is a perversion of the true God, who not only created but also maintains and renews the physical creation, enabling man to breathe, work, and think.
To deny this God is a perversion of reality on the cosmic level. Such a people call themselves "scientific," "objective," "tolerant," but the bible says that they are "professing themselves to be wise, [but] they became fools." Romans 1:22. They replaced "the glory of the uncorruptible God" with "an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." Romans 1:23. They replaced the Creator with the Creation, both the Creation of God and the Creations of man.
Man has created institutions, methods of thought, and philosophies which he considers primary or even foundational to the existence of the universe. Modern man thinks himself very smart, even though he is re-living the life of ancient man, who also replaced the worship of God with the worship of creation, its mysteries, its primal forces, its beauty. Modern man's "idols" are of a more sophisticated brand, but they are idols nonetheless. See Schlossberg's Idols for Destruction, ibid.
We have come full circle, and we will re-live the same devolution that ancient man experienced. "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 1:24-25.
Notice that the dishonoring of the body occurs as a result of the new, progressive thought that we can learn the "real" foundation for reality and can reject the God of the bible. Notice this change in philosophy need not start with gender confusion; it merely rejects the glory of God as the foundation of reality and the object of worship. The initiation of gender confusion is with God Himself - "God . . . gave them up to uncleanness." "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections," followed by a description of the homosexual lifestyle. Romans 1:26.
Who are "them?" If the passage is referring to an individualistic judgment - pervert the true God in your individual thinking and He will pervert your sexuality, then we have a limited form of judgment. But is God limited to such individualized judgment? He, of course, is not. Could His judgment fall on the entire society, affecting people to the point that even if they don't adopt the same perverse philosophy as their leaders and educators, they face the same affects on their sexuality - a power coercing them toward perverse sexuality? If so, then this judgment is so much more fearful and destructive than we ever imagined.
Such judgment would be covenantal judgment. If the entire society suffers because of the perverse thinking and worship of its covenant leadership, then the people's choice of such leadership comes back upon them in the form of a perverting of their own sons and daughters. Hearkening back to the three key institutions of society - church, state, and family, if the people of the society allow the fools professing to be wise to lead them, does covenantal judgment then run downhill upon them?
The history of Israel demonstrates that the covenant faithfulness or unfaithfulness of the kings and priests of Israel affected the entire population. For example, the faithfulness of King David resulted in the greatest era of Israel's kingdom history, while the perverseness of Amaziah resulted in defeat and judgment, culminating generations later in the Israelites being taken captive to Babylon, a pagan nation.
Our modern wise men assert all sorts of other natural and historical explanations for those events. And that's logically what they should do, for in perverting the true God, they also must pervert history in order to deny His rightful judgment upon mankind. If they can deny that God judged in history, they can move society away from the fear of God and toward their idea of progress, which is always liberation from the law of the biblical God. Even more importantly and for their psychic well-being, they must deny His authority to judge in eternity. Denying the creation is the most prominent method for accomplishing this so-called "liberation."
Christians play along by being guilt manipulated. You'll hear this: "You really believe a loving God would judge people so harshly?!" The correct answer is: "Only a loving God would judge so harshly! He is holy, all powerful, and the judge of all. Would you believe Him to be something He is not!?" But instead, they capitulate in order to not appear "harsh."
They think that if the wicked accuse them of being unloving, it's true. It's not true. The most loving message a Christian can bring to the wicked is this: "God almighty is angry with you all the day long, for you have sinned against His law and rejected the salvation offered in His Son. Repent and believe the gospel and He will wipe away your sins and make you His child." Christians are to rule by applying this truth to all humanity, thereby bringing them into the truth that liberates them as individuals and provides a society of people who respect God's word above man's. This is evangelism, this is our Lord's prayer that "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."
The above message warns a person of great danger facing him for his perversion of the true God and at the same time, gives him hope of being pardoned by the Judge of the universe and of his very soul. As related in the hymn Amazing Grace, "Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, and grace my fears relieved; how precious did that grace appear, the hour I first believed." The preaching of the gospel of grace brings people into the truth of the loving God of judgment.
Watering down that message gives the person an "out." "I don't have to believe what you believe; it's just what you believe." No, it is the message of the authoritative Son of God sent through the Jewish people and their book of God-inspired warnings and messages of comfort and liberty from sin and judgment. Modern man alleges that message is a made-up "opiate of the masses," invented to keep them submissive like cattle.
Yet, these same people when they put on a political mantle, impose their beliefs as if their word is absolute truth. They shift and change the law to fit their personal beliefs and desires and demand all others follow, not because God commands it but because they command it. They rule with an iron fist, expecting utter submission to their changeable, cruel, and corrupted word; they've exchanged the incorruptible God for themselves. And God turns them to pervert themselves, and if necessary, he allows them to pervert the entire society. A fearful judgment indeed!
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:28-32.
Notice that the final passage of Romans 1 places the same judgment upon those who approve of them as those who commit the acts. As society becomes more and more approving of these vile affections and perversions - intellectual, theological, and social - it becomes more and more perverted - total depravity is the only limit. The end is death, but what form does "death" take for an entire society? We can at the least assert that such a society declines from its former position of prominence, if it had been prominent previously.
The premier example of the fate of such societies that is set forth in scripture is a society that rapidly descended into homosexual rape as the initiation ceremony for those visiting that society. "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." Jude 1:7.
The questions for a society already in such decline are: Can it be stopped, even reversed? If so, how?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)